Whirlpool of India Pays Rs 50,000 Compounding Fee in Andhra Pradesh Legal Metrology Matter:

Whirlpool of India informs the stock exchange that it has paid the compounding fee amounting to Rs 50,000 for violating the Legal Metrology Act, 2009; the Andhra Pradesh Legal Metrology Rules, 2011; and the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011.
Company Says Present Action Does Not Affect Its Business Operations or Any Other Activities

Whirlpool of India Pays Rs 50,000 Compounding Fee in Andhra Pradesh Legal Metrology Matter
Whirlpool of India Limited has informed the stock exchange (Bombay Stock Exchange Limited and National Stock Exchange of India) that it has paid a One time compounding fee amounting to Rs 50,000 for compounding under the Legal Metrology Act, 2009; Andhra Pradesh Legal Metrology Rules, 2011 and Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011.
The fee is paid to the Department of Legal Metrology, Andhra Pradesh, in connection with certain packaging-related compliance issues. The company has asserted that some information that is required to be displayed on product packages was not properly mentioned, which resulted in contravention of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009; the Andhra Pradesh Legal Metrology Rules, 2011; and the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011.
To resolve the matter and avoid further litigation in the present matter, Whirlpool of India has admitted its mistake and paid the liable compounding fee and received the official receipt from the authority. The receipt was received on the same day of fee payment, i.e., June 10, 2026.
Whirlpool clarified that apart from the Rs 50,000 compounding fee, there is no additional financial impact arising from the matter. The company also stated that the issue has not affected its business operations or any other activities.
The company has disclosed the aforementioned information through an Intimation dated June 10, 2026, under Regulation 30 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015.
About Author

Saloni Kumari
Content Writer
Saloni is a Content Writer with 2+ years of experience at studycafe.in. She writes legal, taxation, and finance related content including GST, Income Tax etc. Skilled in translating complex judicial pronouncements and regulatory developments into clear, and reader-friendly articles. Experienced in covering judgements of ITAT, High Court, GSTAT, and news related to Income Tax, GST, and corporate law. She can be reached at [email protected].
Saloni is a Content Writer with 2+ years of experience at studycafe.in. She writes legal, taxation, and finance related content including GST, Income Tax etc. Skilled in translating complex judicial pronouncements and regulatory developments into clear, and reader-friendly articles. Experienced in covering judgements of ITAT, High Court, GSTAT, and news related to Income Tax, GST, and corporate law. She can be reached at [email protected].
StudyCafe
Delhi, Delhi, India
2704My Recent Articles
- ITAT Remands Section 69C Unexplained Expenditure Addition After Taxpayer Submits Supporting DocumentsPremium
- ITAT Restores Section 40(a)(ia) Disallowance Dispute Over Alleged Section 194C TDS Failure Premium
- ITAT Condoned Delay After Noting Indeed Technical Glitch on E-filing Portal and Restores Section 12A and 80G ApplicationsPremium
- ITAT Rejects Section 69A Unexplained Money Addition Based on Alleged Over-Invoicing Entry Found in Third-Party SearchPremium
- ITAT Condoned 336-Day Delay in Section 68 Case After Taxpayer Cites Lack Of Online Communication AwarenessPremium
Up Next
Loading suggestions…
Recent Posts
All Posts
Recent Posts
All Posts








